Thursday, June 21, 2007

Memo To Jim:

Hey, buddy! It's been a while. I hope the kids are good.

I saw recently that you've been interested in a troubled outfielder. That guy is bad news. Bad NEWS. I think you've had your eye on the wrong troubled outfielder.

The A's just designated Milton Bradley for assignment. Sure, he's a pain in the tuchus, but at least he's not beating his wife. I know, he's been a disruptive influence in the clubhouse sometime, but if hating Jeff Kent is a bad thing, we're all terrible people. Besides, isn't Manny Acta's strength the way he works with people? Bradley certainly wasn't a problem in Oakland.

Sure, he's injured all the time, but that's no problem with our roster -- Ted's keeping up on the HMO payments, right? But when healthy, the dude can hit. He'd easily be our most productive outfielder.

Yeah, I know his contract is up at the end of the year. That's a plus, in some respects. There's not much of a cash outlay -- I think he's got about $2 million left -- and there's a chance that he'd be a Type B free agent at the end of the year, netting us a pick. It's a smart move! Buy low, sell high! That's what you always tell me (when you're not talking about "pitching, pitching, pitching," that is).

If he works out, great! Maybe you'd even be able to flip him at the deadline? If not, walk and hope for picks. Or maybe, if he proves himself to be a good citizen, you sign him on the cheap and build with him point forwards. He's only 29 afterall.

See what the A's would take. Their owners are even more... well, let's just say that they're frugal. Maybe they'd take some stiffs for him, depending on what kind of interest level you're hearing from around the league. If we're lucky, you could snag him for nothing off waivers!

Send my best to Joy.


  • Ah, but could Jim trust Milton to watch his children?

    By Anonymous Simon Oliver Lockwood, at 6/21/2007 2:42 PM  

  • First off, that's a funny post, nice work. I read your blog all the time as you have a humorous take on our plight.

    Second and most importantly, why sign the "Monopoly Man"? Sure, he might hit some dingers and win us 3 games (how much of a difference can he really make, besides contaminating our clubhouse?) but what's the net of his presence? I say we all just sack up and admit that we will end up being one of the 4 worst teams in the league this year. But dammit, let's do so in a productive manner. Let's let the little potential we have on our current roster play out the year. Let's give guys first, second and heck even third chances. Seems like Nook and Langerhans definitely aren't starters, so give Watson another chance, and if/when he fails go back to Nook/Langerhans, then try out another minor leaguer.

    It's like communion, ever gets a taste.

    By Anonymous fa-NATS-ic, at 6/21/2007 3:25 PM  

  • Because there is ZERO evidence from the track record of Logan or Watson that they'll ever be successful on the major league level. Langerhans is a tossup -- at least he has a little power and a little patience.

    I wouldn't worry about the clubhouse harmony TOOOO much. Bradley wasn't a terrible influence in Oakland (at least til recently) and as much as we love the clubhouse harmony, this is still a team that's on pace to lose 95 games.

    Getting Bradley would be either about building forward with him, or about flipping him as an asset -- think of the same thing the team is doing with Dmitri Young. Either he could be used as trade bait, or you could let him walk for a pick (likely) at the end of the season.

    If he comes for nothing (or almost nothing), you can pull value out of thin air.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/21/2007 3:30 PM  

  • if we get him for nothing, then fine. if we have to give up anything of value, forget it.

    he was a disaster in cleveland and he would absolutely not fit in w/ the "mannyball" run out every hit and play hard philosophy. why? because that's what he steadfastly refused to do in cleveland. when the manager called him out on it (for the 953rd time), he chose to simply leave the ballpark. so the (at the time) downtrodden tribe traded their (at the time) budding star to LA who then traded him to oakland who then DFAed him.

    talk about a downward trajectory! i guess our nats fit nicely in this path after all...

    By Blogger Bill, at 6/21/2007 4:06 PM  

  • Langerhans to Oakland for Uncle Milty?

    By Blogger Nate, at 6/21/2007 4:26 PM  

  • I'm not sure that MB could inflate his trade value much in the 5 weeks or so until the non-waiver trade deadline to make it worthwhile to give up anything for him.

    And to get a pick for him, wouldn't the Nats have to offer him a contract (or arbitration)? If he got no other offers, he'd take it and he'd be a Nat next year. (And CF is reserved for Andruw next year!)

    Don't forget, we already have an oft-injured OF ready to take the useless OF spot on the roster: Alex Escobar. He's Latin so he's easier to control (Sheffield reference)

    No doubt that the Nats would be better if MB was patrolling CF instead of our current choices.

    By Anonymous Kirk, at 6/21/2007 4:38 PM  

  • I love it - get Milton! get Milton!

    By Anonymous the nationals enquirer, at 6/21/2007 5:09 PM  

  • Nate-

    I rolled my eyes at your Langerhans comment until I remembered we got him from Oakland. Good one, even if I am slow.

    By Blogger Skedeebs, at 6/21/2007 5:19 PM  

  • Oh, for craps' sake...can we get a friggin' first baseman who can catch a short hop, please? Can we do that first, please? Huh? Can we?

    By Blogger Jim, at 6/21/2007 11:33 PM  

  • I hear they have this hot new prospect, who's about ready to get a shot. I can't think of his name... Nick Johanson or something like that.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/22/2007 8:25 AM  

  • Because there is ZERO evidence from the track record of Logan or Watson that they'll ever be successful on the major league level.

    OK, but there is also precious little evidence (IMHO) that Watson will not be successful either.

    I mean, c'mon, the guy (including this week's game) has had a grand total of 71 at bats, and never more than 40 AB in a season. If Langerhans can 125 AB in a season, then give Watson such a chance before we write him off. (Not everyone can get a 43-game hitting streak -- even if it is AAA)

    By Anonymous A DC Wonk, at 6/22/2007 8:41 AM  

  • Well, there's a long minor league history that shows that he's not really an outstanding minor league hitter.

    He's a career .357 slugger in the minors. EVEN IF he were able to duplicate that in the majors -- which is unlikely, since that was put up against inferior pitching -- he'd still be a below average player, especially because he's a bad defender.

    Sure, 71 ABs isn't enough to show that he can't hit.

    It's those 3200 minor-league ABs which show that.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/22/2007 8:52 AM  

  • Take a low-risk, medium reward chance on Bradley? That'll never happen. It makes too much sense.

    As for Andruw Jones, I was all about that signing 6 weeks ago (even though from a pure baseball standpoint it wouldn't be a good decision), but it would have been hard for him to do more damage to his value in that time. .388 SLG, Ouch!

    By Blogger RPS, at 6/22/2007 10:21 AM  

  • I hear they have this hot new prospect, who's about ready to get a shot. I can't think of his name... Nick Johanson or something like that. you think Johnson's actually going to play regularly this year. Seeing he's never been on the disabled list and is quick to heal, I can understand that.

    By all means...first base no longer needs to be addressed.

    By Blogger Jim, at 6/22/2007 10:36 AM  

  • If you're worrying about who should play first base this year, you're missing the point of this season. ;)

    Fick/Belliard/the guy who sells your lemonade could all fill in.

    I'd be interested to see if they give Josh Whitsell a chance later this year if NJ doesn't come back. He's hit the crap out of the ball in AA, but of course it's about his 10th straight year in AA.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/22/2007 10:38 AM  

  • If you're worrying about who should play first base this year, you're missing the point of this season. ;)

    Okay. Yep. Good point. Never mind. ;)

    I actually wouldn't mind seeing Langerhans over there every now and again. I understand he used to play the position...and he seems to have the build.

    Wouldn't improve the offense, for sure...but it might be interesting to see if he could provide some defense over there.

    By Blogger Jim, at 6/22/2007 11:10 AM  

  • That was actually my preferred solution to the crowded OF earlier this year. Give Church or Snelling a big ol' mitt and see what they could do.

    It worked for Wilkerson!

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/22/2007 11:12 AM  

  • Don't the Yankees need a centerfielder?

    By Blogger Sam, at 6/22/2007 12:07 PM  

  • I don't think the Yankees would want Nook Logan! ;)

    Take a quick scan around any team blog. 90% of them wrote a similar post. There'll probably be some competition for him.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/22/2007 12:10 PM  

  • The Milton trade fell through for some reason so theres still a chance that Jim will get the memo and act.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/25/2007 11:01 AM  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2009 10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home